Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[donald_of_tokyo]

The relationship between tonnage and cost isn't linear. Nor is the relationship between tonnage and capability.

Sure, fully agree. RN made CVF as large as possible to enjoy the scale-merit.

There is 0 chance that Type 26 would be in the water now if CVF had been smaller. Changing the size of the QEC has no impact on how long the design process which produced Type 26 was going to take. In fact the shipbuilding gap following CVF may have been longer, incurring significant costs and forcing HMG to buy yet more OPVs.

Disagree. Designing a ship do not need ten years. You can see many such example world wide. I guess it was cost, indecision and, what is more, confusion after the economical crash at 2008.

Its also well known that goldfish have a memory span of 6s. But that's false too. They have a memory span of 3 months

Sorry, but it has nothing to do with my case.

a 1% reduction in ship size would equate to cutting 10% (say) of the airwing.

I am 100% sure you will agree this is too much an exaggeration. CVF is designed to provide 70 sorties/day for 5 days = 350 sorties in 5 days. Then, we know french CV is 30% smaller than CVF, USN CV is 30% larger. If your number is correct, CDG MUST have 4% (= (0.90)^(30) ) capability of CVF (14 sorties in 5 days), and Ford has 25 times the capability (8750 sorties). Surely your number is wrong. I guess (I admit it is guess), CDG is ~50% capable, and Ford is ~twice capable than CVF.

I understand CVF is designed to their requirement. There will be no "un-needed" space onboard. I never said "make it smaller while keeping the requirement". What I want to say is, if the requirement is made 60% (= ~200 sorties in 5 days), CVF shall be smaller, simply because it is designed to fill the requirement. Then, I guess the ship will be around 50000t FLD (= 25% smaller). With air strike requirement 40% smaller, air-wing size will be 40% smaller. (Even from here, cost to convert T31s to 5 T26s will easily come out). This will also free-up many accomodation space, which is kept for air wing crews. With 25% smaller hull, the ship core crew will be ~20% small, providing 260 free crews, which can almost fill Dancan (only partly crewed now) and a T23. The ship build cost will also be ~20% smaller.

Like I said, these ships have far more kit in them than you dreamt of in your philosophy horatio. More than you would realise from wikipedia or Janes.

I totally agree CVF is "full". Please, please, do not blame me for anything I never said. (I feel you are discussing with someone other than me, and most of your comment has no contradiction to mine ...). And, I am sure French CDG also has some amount, kitted within 45000t hull. Please do not misunderstand me, I am NOT/NEVER saying CDG is equally capable to CVF. Also never said it is 70% capable (I never said capability is proportional to size).

On the other hand, if the scale merit of CVF is so great, why RN required T26 to carry TLAM? Too much stress in land attack capability, I think. If T26 is designed without 24-cell VLS (and only 8 canistered SSMs), 13 hull would have been available within 8B+2B = 10B GBP. This should have been another good solution. But not coming into reality, I know.

[ArmChairCivvy]

why RN required T26 to carry TLAM? Too much stress in land attack capability, I think

CEPP.Power Projection needs an effect on land. One can think of a naval blockade where all the action is at sea and the effect on land can still be great... but that is a special case.

[Gabriele]

SD Tempest heading north to Rosyth, with ETA tomorrow at 11.00.

[shark bait]

RN required T26 to carry TLAM because the T26 was suppose to be the platform for everything, general purpose and ASW specialist. Unfortunately they ran out of money to see than plan through.

As just an ASW platform full length Mk41 is unnecessary. As a GP frigate full length Mk41 is highly desirable.

[donald_of_tokyo]

why RN required T26 to carry TLAM? Too much stress in land attack capability, I think

CEPP.Power Projection needs an effect on land. One can think of a naval blockade where all the action is at sea and the effect on land can still be great... but that is a special case.

But for CEPP, RN/MOD made CVF so large, which requires resource. With scale merit, 65000t CVF have (I guess) twice the capability of a 45000-50000t CVF. Twice. With big optimism, RN/MOD in addition required land attack capability for T26, and run out of resource and now "19 escort" myth is in danger. In short, RN got big improvement and CEPP, and simply going to lose escort number in place. Just a change in priority, and cannot be regarded as decline.

If RN is happy with 10 T26s with 6 T45, it is OK. If 19 is must, T31 must be very simple Patrol Frigate. It is reasonable, although I also do not like "all Patrol Frigate T31s" (the reason I am proposing to bias the resource among the 6 (or 5)).

[ArmChairCivvy]

now "19 escort" myth is in danger. In short, RN got big improvement and CEPP, and simply going to lose escort number in place. Just a change in priority, and cannot be regarded as decline.

I think you put it well there.

Attacks on SLOC pinch points are rising, in frequency and therefore the "simple" patrol frigates may not be quite as useless as they are made to be (here). An attack with a shore-based anti-ship missile (even if it takes place in the presence of such a frigate, rather than against it) may soon bring the "big brother" i.e. the CVF & companions to the area, with a legitimate reason for a counterstrike
... something to contemplate (by an attacker that has been supplied by the means, as is the case in Yemen now)

[marktigger]

how much cost is there in designing in room for expansion

[abc123]

And, I am sure French CDG also has some amount, kitted within 45000t hull. Please do not misunderstand me, I am NOT/NEVER saying CDG is equally capable to CVF. Also never said it is 70% capable (I never said capability is proportional to size).

On the other hand, if the scale merit of CVF is so great, why RN required T26 to carry TLAM? Too much stress in land attack capability, I think. If T26 is designed without 24-cell VLS (and only 8 canistered SSMs), 13 hull would have been available within 8B+2B = 10B GBP. This should have been another good solution. But not coming into reality, I know.

Consdering that the QE-class will never ( except in maybe some Falklands-type situation ) carry more fighters than CDG, I really wouldn't say that QE is way better... What I wanted to say is that the RN, could easily buy CDG-class ship or even Cavour class ship if they don't have the intention of putting the full complement of fighters there. For 12 F-35B, you don't need 70 000+ tons "supercarrier", Cavour size is enough...

[serge750]

Yes in hindsight a Cavour style carrier may be more flexible for everyday use for 12 F35 + crowsnest + a few asw merlins (which would nearly max out a Cavour) but these carriers we are getting were designed before the credit crunch when we anticipated operating double or more aircraft, if the MOD were to design a ship now it probably would be more Cavour size, I doubt we could swap these QEC for something smaller...on a major plus side, the QEC will cost about the same as a Cavour to run with the same air complement, also designed to last 50 years, & if we ever we do need a serge of military power we could do it if & when we get more airframes.. mid 2030's, in the meantime i'm sure the airgroup as above will have a few international visitors to bolster the numbers...us marines F35, osprey's etc maybe even Italian F35...or if turkey get some B's...lots of potential

[Engaging Strategy]

Consdering that the QE-class will never ( except in maybe some Falklands-type situation ) carry more fighters than CDG, I really wouldn't say that QE is way better...

The QEC will almost certainly carry as many fixed wing aircraft as the CdeG. ~24. It also has a lot more space for force protection and assault helicopters. In terms of the QEC as an aviation platform she's undoubtedly better in significant areas such as the volume of stores, fuel and ammunition onboard and ready for use. Otherwise you still have provide those things, but with additional strain on logistical support shipping.

What I wanted to say is that the RN, could easily buy CDG-class ship or even Cavour class ship if they don't have the intention of putting the full complement of fighters there. For 12 F-35B, you don't need 70 000+ tons "supercarrier", Cavour size is enough...

Enough for what? Cavour can generate ~40 sorties a day at maximum surge output with 20 AV-8Bs aboard. Almost certainly fewer with the bigger and significantly more complex and maintainance intensive F-35B. Is 40 sorties a day, as an absolute max effort sustainable for a few days only, enough for fleet air defence? Enough for effective concurrent CAP and strike operations? I would argue not. If all a carrier can do is defend its task group it's of limited use. As for "12 F-35B" look at the recent plans for the CSG. 24 F-35B +16 Merlin HM.2, Crowsnest & HC.4 with room for Chinook and other add ons when necessary. It's not even remotely possible to operate that sort of air group from a ship like Cavour. The Invincible class were a mistake, one we learned from the hard way. Small carriers just aren't worth the effort.

[abc123]

Consdering that the QE-class will never ( except in maybe some Falklands-type situation ) carry more fighters than CDG, I really wouldn't say that QE is way better...

The QEC will almost certainly carry as many fixed wing aircraft as the CdeG. ~24. It also has a lot more space for force protection and assault helicopters. In terms of the QEC as an aviation platform she's undoubtedly better in significant areas such as the volume of stores, fuel and ammunition onboard and ready for use. Otherwise you still have provide those things, but with additional strain on logistical support shipping.

What I wanted to say is that the RN, could easily buy CDG-class ship or even Cavour class ship if they don't have the intention of putting the full complement of fighters there. For 12 F-35B, you don't need 70 000+ tons "supercarrier", Cavour size is enough...

Enough for what? Cavour can generate ~40 sorties a day at maximum surge output with 20 AV-8Bs aboard. Almost certainly fewer with the bigger and significantly more complex and maintainance intensive F-35B. Is 40 sorties a day, as an absolute max effort sustainable for a few days only, enough for fleet air defence? Enough for effective concurrent CAP and strike operations? I would argue not. If all a carrier can do is defend its task group it's of limited use. As for "12 F-35B" look at the recent plans for the CSG. 24 F-35B +16 Merlin HM.2, Crowsnest & HC.4 with room for Chinook and other add ons when necessary. It's not even remotely possible to operate that sort of air group from a ship like Cavour. The Invincible class were a mistake, one we learned from the hard way. Small carriers just aren't worth the effort.

Just saying that if you want to operate the carrier with 12 fighters, even with 12 F-35B, you don't need a supercarrier for that. As for the rest of airgroup ( helicopters ), you can fly them from dedicated LHDs that are way less expensive ( about 10x less ) to risk in actual combat.
And sorry, but I don't count US Marine F-35s or Turkish F-35s as part of he airgrup. USA or Turkey didn't pay for QE-carriers, British taxpayers did. And I really don't think that they would have done that if the HMG had said to them that they will be operated with 12 F-35B. No, they said 36.
And when will we see 36? Maybe somewhere in 2076.

[Enigmatically]

You think I am debating someone else's point because you are not listening to me Donald.

In large handfuls to explain the ratios

QEC has 3000 compartments ok?
50 tonne ship decrease in volume proportionally with displacement, so will have 3000/65*50 = 2307. So everything that is in 700 compts must go
So you can't save that by cutting the airwing a bit (would lose more than the entire wing's accommodation). So by cutting to 50kt you are not just reducing the sortie generation rate, you are losing other capability as well- quite a lot of it.

Part of the issue is that the F-35's footprint on a carrier is a lot bigger than older aircraft. That is an issue even a Nimitz struggles to support as well as a carrier designed specifically for it (like QEC or GRF), let alone CdG or Cavour

[donald_of_tokyo]

QEC has 3000 compartments ok?
50 tonne ship decrease in volume proportionally with displacement, so will have 3000/65*50 = 2307. So everything that is in 700 compts must go

Thanks, but it is no yet clear.

Another way is to make each compartment's size 50/65. Of course, not possible to apply to ALL comps, but can do to many: fuel tank, accommodation, hangar space, arsenal. With less requirement for sortie rate (which needs smaller air wings), those compartments can be small. With small hangar and support space for air wings, ship size can be smaller which means ship-crew size, ship-fuel, food etc. etc. size could be smaller. Briefing room, operations room, even mess room can be.

Am I wrong here?

Again, you said, CDG's capability must be only 4% of QEC. You are still saying the same thing?

[ArmChairCivvy]

Why are we having this discussion here when there is a QE thread? Anyway, on the fables and little fibbers around the carriers:
They were designed flexible. They have 3000 compartments.

When reverting back to cats and traps was discussed/ costed, the claim was that 2000 compartments would have changes... hence the sky-high cost estimate (the cats and traps themselvels were offered at a fixed cost, at a third of the total).

And the same story in reverse, from what swoop linked to on the carrier thread:
"it would cost over half a billion dollars to remove EMALS and install the older steam catapults. This would also take up to several years and lead to many other internal changes. The navy is now considering bringing a recently retired carrier back to active service as a stopgap"

No wonder the one-carrier nations have had v little use of them... seems to be a trial and error game for everybody. Actually, the French have done quite well (save for propellers falling off and lengthy refuelling/ refit gaps)

[Enigmatically]

Another way is to make each compartment's size 50/65. Of course, not possible to apply to ALL comps, but can do to many: fuel tank, accommodation, hangar space, arsenal. With less requirement for sortie rate (which needs smaller air wings), those compartments can be small. With small hangar and support space for air wings, ship size can be smaller which means ship-crew size, ship-fuel, food etc. etc. size could be smaller. Briefing room, operations room, even mess room can be.

Am I wrong here?

But as you say, you can't do that for all. But even with your proposal above you will have lost range/endurance and speed as well as SGR. So my point is its not just SGR that you lose with a smaller carrier

Again, you said, CDG's capability must be only 4% of QEC. You are still saying the same thing?

Plainly not, what i am saying is that CDG is missing many other systems and capabilities that QEC has.
Some are needed to get teh most out of F-35 (but not the older french aircraft), some are other things

[donald_of_tokyo]

But as you say, you can't do that for all. But even with your proposal above you will have lost range/endurance and speed as well as SGR. So my point is its not just SGR that you lose with a smaller carrier

Range/endurance and speed is "requirement". If you require higher-speed/longer range, the ship will be larger. It is the same to air wing. This is what I said, and as I said, do not contradict with your argument.

Plainly not, what i am saying is that CDG is missing many other systems and capabilities that QEC has.
Some are needed to get teh most out of F-35 (but not the older french aircraft), some are other things

If it is required, it will be there. If not, not be. (For example, Italian Cavour requires it or not? I do not know, but Cavour is 30000t FLD). Smaller sortie rate requires smaller air wings, hanger, accommodation, fuel tank, and arsenal. Since these assets share large amount of space/weight within a CV, smaller sortie rate means smaller CVF. If you require smaller range, the ship will be more smaller. So smaller CVF would have been easy. I think it is clear.

Anyway, this is escort thread (thanks ArmChairCivvy-san). We are living in a world 2 QEC, 65000t FLD each, is coming. It drains big resource so escort fleet must endure it. But, because the QEC is so capable, we MUST think how to fully utilize it. For example, following way of thinkings MUST be considered:
1: Positively consider using CVF as a multi-purpose platform. As "an ASW carrier with 9 Merlin" and "air strike carrier with 24 F35B and 4 Merlin AEW" at once. I think this is surely MUST. We know CDG cannot do it. And this means the ASW escort for QEC-TF can be less than that for CDG-TF, relying on the 9 Merlins.
2: Even performing air strike and LPH role at once. As shown above, ship size is enough. For me, if you can send LPH/LHD filled with 1000 RM soldiers 100 km from the shore, you can also send CVF at the same location. But I know there shall be a big debate here.
3: Utilize Patrol Frigate to show the flag, and rely on "deterrence" of large CVTF which WILL come in revenge.
4: Omit ALL Mk.41 VLS from T26 to save the day, and rely on CVTF's F35B and SSN's TLAM for land attack.

I think item-1 is important, and it could be the reason RN apparently no requiring good ASW capability for T31. But, it is only guess, I admit. But, item-1 itself is not guess. It is fact, I think,
Item-3 and 4 shall also be considered as an option, depending on the tightness of the budget.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Good points your 1-4, and I will try to move this away from carriers with a couple of closing points:

LHD filled with 1000 RM soldiers 100 km from the shore, you can also send CVF at the same location

- not much utility with the first alternative as the current UK OTH capability and capacity is so small; now things will change

Cavour is 30000t FLD [)]. Smaller sortie rate requires smaller air wings, hanger, accommodation, fuel tank, and arsenal.

- Cavour comes from the same era as the Spanish "Intervention Ship" design. Jets are a support function (in the Spanish case, an optional one and in the Ozzie case omitted altogether), whereas the ability of a significant number of San Marco Rgmnt members bobbing up and down near someone's coast line for upto 6 months was designed in. So Cavour only just qualifies as a carrier (being clearly a step up from our thru-deck cruisers) and the others not at all.

[Aethulwulf]

As has been publicly stated, the standard carrier group will consist of 24 F35s and 16 Merlins on the carrier, 9 of which will be HM2 ASW. The rest of the ships in the group will carry Wildcat. The reason for concentrating all the Merlins on the carrier is it greatly reduces the total number of maintenance crew required - and hence saves money. This approach also makes it more likely that the FSS will be designed with a single hanger and flight deck, also saving money. For ASW ops the carrier group will still need at least 2 T26/T23 ASW, working with the Merlins on the carrier (and the odd P-8).

[shark bait]

Merlin isn't a replacement for an ASW frigate. The carrier would need a hell of a lot more Merlin to search the same area a pair of Frigates can.

Both are needed, they work together as a system, with the frigates doing wide area persistent search, and the Merlin flying in to localize and contact and engage at range if require.

The Merlin is also there for delousing in case anything slips through the net.

2 ASW frigates and half a dozen Merlin is the minimum ASW force required to protect a carrier.

[donald_of_tokyo]

But it means CDG-TF needs more than 4 ASW escorts, or 2 ASW escorts and an ASW carrier (Mistral equipped with ASW helos?) to follow her, to have the same protection level as the QEC-TF with 2 T26s. In other words, this will be the reason French FTI is ASW capable while T31 can go without it?

4 T26s for 2 QEs is OK with leaving another 4 for other tasks. Yes deployment ratio must be considered, but it is the same for the CV itself. Then, these 4 T26s will be 1 to escort Albion, 2 for TAPS, leaving 1 surplus. Not bad.

On Merlin "not to be carried on TF-T26s", I am not sure. Wiki says USN CV air wing has 11 Romeos in total, while 5-6 will be onboard the escort fleet. So, USN is "distributing" ASW helos among CVN and escorts. In Japan, our DDH (=Helicopter carrier) is the core of 8 SH60J/K fleet of the flotilla. Escorts carry 1 each, but they lack "heavy maintenance" capability, which is supported by the DDH. So, focusing all ASW helos in carrier will be efficient, but maybe not killing, I guess...

[ArmChairCivvy]

concentrating all the Merlins on the carrier is it greatly reduces the total number of maintenance crew required - and hence saves money. This approach also makes it more likely that the FSS will be designed with a single hanger and flight deck, also saving money.

The same argument to the power of two actually makes it weaker:
- we won one war with a single heavy lift helo (after an unlikely scenario suddenly became reality)
- I doubt we can do it again (even after adding possibly two more ASW Merlins on the 2 T26/T23 ASW); still not a 24/7 operation when the threat level is high, ie. for a limited period that could still stretch to be days

2 ASW frigates and half a dozen Merlin is the minimum ASW force required to protect a carrier.

- all very well... as long as you have them
- concentration risk is the mother of all evils

[ArmChairCivvy]

to have the same protection level as the QEC-TF with 2 T26s. In other words, this will be the reason French FTI is ASW capable while T31 can go without it?

In the interim, the Lafayettes (originally designed as world-wide surveillance frigates) are being converted for the role. India is building a class specifically for this purpose - their Russian ASW helicopters are not quite Merlins, at least not yet - on their long and winding road to having three carriers.

[dmereifield]

to have the same protection level as the QEC-TF with 2 T26s. In other words, this will be the reason French FTI is ASW capable while T31 can go without it?

In the interim, the Lafayettes (originally designed as world-wide surveillance frigates) are being converted for the role. India is building a class specifically for this purpose - their Russian ASW helicopters are not quite Merlins, at least not yet - on their long and winding road to having three carriers.

I thought that the Lafeyettes were only getting a HMS?

[ArmChairCivvy]

read that the Lafeyettes were getting HMS only in the upgrade

Yes. The Germans also ditched their RFP for towed sonars. A trend? Or making virtue out of necessity? The FTIs won't hit the water tomorrow. Nor will the CdG be there for them to guard it.

[LordJim]

I think it is a fair assumption that the CVF will sail with a single T-26 and a T-45 as its standard escort, along with the relevant RFAs. Obviously the threat level will be under constant scrutiny and additional assets will be tasked as needed. This way mean an additional T-26 and even another T-45 will have secondary orders to move to support the CVBG, and this will affect where these units can be utilised when not needed. These assets will have to be from those vessels currently available so that would leave say 2 T-26s and possibly a single T-45 available for other tasks. This makes the need for the T-31 to carry out the tasks NOT requiring a "Full Fat" warship more important.